My dude, we can absolutely not agree that trying to take someone’s glass is a “use of force”.

Ok. Surely, we can agree it was a physical act. Surely, we can agree it was the first physical interaction of the altercation. There was no physical contact between the parties prior to her grabbing the drink.

Can we agree that it was also unjustified? If not, can we agree that her attempt to grab the glass was not invited, wanted, or consented to? At the very least, it was the first physical escalation of a verbal disagreement, right?

When a physical altercation has commenced, the person instigating the physical altercation is not justified in using any force until they have attempted to retreat from the altercation. If she did, indeed, instigate the altercation, (even if his reaction was a “wild escalation”), she was not justified in continuing the altercation, let alone escalating it, until she had made some effort to retreat.

Did she make some effort to retreat? Or was she continuing the physical altercation she had provoked and instigated?

And since literally the entire altercation after that was predicted on a absolutely wild escalation on his part,

You’ve made this argument, repeatedly, and rationally. I’ve commended your analysis on escalation as reasonable, fair, rational. I’ve conceded every single point you’ve made about escalation.

I’ve also pointed out that “escalation” is only one relevant factor. More specifically, “escalation” affects the determination of “reasonableness” as it applies to the use of force. It is not the only factor that determines reasonableness, and it is certainly not the only factor relevant to justification. Talk to me about justification. I’ve conceded that the throwing of the drink was not justified, and I’ve conceded that the possible justification for the kick was, at best, questionable. Talk to me about justification with regard to every other act committed by each party.

Following the strict, technical definition of assault, yes, reaching for the drink was assault. Grabbing the drink was technically battery. Subsequently throwing the drink at her may or may not also be considered assault and battery, depending on how “provocation” and/or “instigation” come into play. Let’s say it is. Let’s say that the thrown drink was battery. He’s guilty, he’s an asshole, but his guilt was in responding to her attack. His actions did not justify her previous actions, nor her subsequent actions.

If you unjustifiably initiate a physical altercation, you are not justified in using force until you have first attempted to retreat from the altercation, or have been stopped, and excessive force is continuing to be used against you. She instigated the altercation: grabbing the drink. He responded, throwing the drink. She was not stopped, and had made no attempt to retreat. She continued the altercation by lunging over the table and striking him multiple times. He was justified at this point in shoving her away from him, which he did. She fell to the ground. Then she got back up on her feet.

The “questionable” conclusion depends on whether it was reasonable to believe she was rising to continue the attack. If she’s the defendant on trial, then she is entitled to the evidence being viewed in her favor. If she’s on trial, the kick was an unjustified continuation of his initially-justified force, and her subsequent actions can be viewed from that perspective.

If he’s the one on trial, he is entitled to the evidence being viewed in his favor. If he’s on trial, the kick was to put her back on the ground, stopping her from continuing to strike him.

Which part of that did I mischaracterize?

The iodine tablets in question are for water sanitization, not protection against thyroid uptake of radioactive isotopes. If your immediate water supply runs out, you might need to refill from lakes and streams.

Are you talking about here, where you discussed “low impact” and “high impact” escalations? I think that was a reasonable, fair analysis of escalation.

The use of force against another person without their consent is generally unlawful unless justified. A use of force is justified where a person reasonably perceives a threat of unjustified force, and uses only such force a reasonable person would believe necessary to stop that threat.

You addressed “escalations” on most of these acts during the altercation. However, your analysis is incomplete. You did not explicitly state whether each of these forceful acts were justified or unjustified, and you did not provide your rationale for determining justification.

1. I don’t want to put words into your mouth, but I think we can agree that grabbing the glass from him was an unjustified use of force.

2. I think we can also agree that his throwing the drink on her was also an unjustified use of force. (Even though there was a previous use of force by her, the throwing of the drink could not be considered an attempt to “stop the threat”; the throwing of the drink was unjustified.)

3. Her lunge across the table. Was this justified, or unjustified? Why?

Watching throughout the video, there are two glasses on the table, and he grabs the one closer to him. Hers appears to be empty at this time.

not an appropriate response to her threatening him with the beer bottle

In a physical altercation, a beer bottle is considered a deadly weapon. We’ve seen too many Hollywood-style, sugar-glass bottles being broken over people’s heads to really think of them that way, but the reality is that the shattering of a glass bottle in a fight can easily cause severe lacerations to the face, eyes, neck, etc. He had already shown that he was retreating from the altercation when she picked up the bottle and confronted him. That final shove was the most defensible act of the entire altercation.

The kick will be the hardest act for his lawyer to explain.

I invite you to go through each and every action and reaction yourself. Characterize them how you wish, and we can reasonably discuss those where we disagree.

Grabbing a drink isn’t assault. Nor is it battery. It is, at most, petty theft.

Common misconception. You should read the legal definitions of both “assault” and “battery”. I would guess that you’re conflating the “aggravated” variants for the simple variants. Grabbing a glass from someone’s hand does, actually, meet the criteria of simple assault and simple battery.

Assault: “Assault is generally defined under common law as an intentional act that puts another person in reasonable apprehension of imminent harmful or offensive contact. No physical injury is required, but the actor must have intended to cause a harmful or offensive contact with the victim and the victim must have thereby been put in immediate apprehension of such contact.”

Battery: “Battery is the intentional infliction of harmful or offensive physical contact with another person without consent.”

Basically, “assault” is merely making someone think you’re going to touch them without consent, and “battery” is merely touching someone without consent. Grabbing the drink meets the legal definitions of both.

“Petty theft” (Petty Larceny) applies to simply taking something without consent. When any level of force is used against a person in the process of the taking, it is not “theft” or “larceny”. It is “robbery”. The use of force in the taking is the defining difference between theft/larceny and robbery.

Whether her intention was assault and battery or robbery, she initiated the physical altercation. He might not have been justified in throwing the liquid at her, but she certainly provoked that response with unjustifiable use of force.

I stand by my analysis. She committed simple assault and battery in #1.

#1 might not justify #2. He might get charges of disorderly conduct for #2.

#2 certainly does not justify #3. She committed assault and battery in #3. Simple or aggravated is an open question.

#3 certainly justified #4.

#5 might not have been justified. It’s an open question.

#7 was not justified.

#7 justified #8.

He escalates the situation at every single point and he was in power and control the whole time.

The law is not interested in who has power and control. The law is interested in each individual’s use of force, and whether that use of force was justified or unjustified.

1. She grabbed the glass. Was this justified or unjustified?
2. He spilled the drink on her. Was this justified or unjustified?
3. She lunged at him. Was this justified or unjustified?
4. He pushed her away; she tripped over her seat and fell to the floor. Was this justified or unjustified?
5. She tried to stand up, and he kicked her back to the ground. Was this justified or unjustified?
6. He backed away from her and gathered his things. Was this justified or unjustified?
7. She picked up a beer bottle, and threatened him with it. Was this justified or unjustified?
8. He shoved her away from him; she again fell back to the ground. Was this justified or unjustified?
9. He continued to gather his things and retreat. Was this justified or unjustified?

1. Unjustified.

2. Unjustified. These first two are tit-for-tat assaults. She instigated, he responded. At this point, both of them are disturbing the peace.

3. Unjustified.

4. Justified. You are justified in using physical force to stop a physical attack against you.

5. Could go either way. In her trial, this was an unjustified escalation on his part. In his trial, he was reasonably concerned she was continuing her previous attack, so he was justified in keeping her on the ground. In both cases, the defendant on trial is owed “reasonable doubt”.

6. Obviously justified; he was de-escalating.

7. Completely unjustified: This would be considered assault with a deadly weapon. He was already in the process of retreating from her; she was not justified in commencing a new attack.

8. Completely justified by her assault. He used reasonable force to keep her from striking him with that bottle.

9. Obviously justified; he was again de-escalating.

Reading this thread, I am starting to think there are a lot of misogynists on Lemmy.

Which part of this analysis makes me a misogynist?

1. She grabbed his drink. Assault. Unjustified.

2. He dumped the drink on her. Questionable. She had instigated the physical altercation, but this could be considered an unjustified escalation.

3. She lunged at him. Escalation: Assault by battery.

4. He shoved her away while she was attacking him; she fell over backward. Even if the beer-dumping was unjustified, he was now justified in using physical force to stop her physical attack.

5. She tried to stand back up; he kicked her back to the ground. Questionable. He was certainly justified in initially shoving her away, which caused her to fall to the ground; if he reasonably believed she was getting back up to continue her battery, he was justified in putting her back on the ground.

6. He retreated, and grabbed his things. De-escalation.

7. She picked up a beer bottle and threatened him with it. Escalation: Assault with a deadly weapon.

8. He shoved her away while she was threatening him. Completely justified by her latest assault.

9. He retreated while she was on the ground. De-escalation.

20g but 17ml?!? I was promised that metric masses and volumes were interchangeable! They told me I wouldn’t have to use any weird conversion ratio!

Liars!

(/s)

The basic recipe for wine is grape juice, yeast, and time, and yeasts are everywhere. It’s not hard to “accidentally” turn an opened bottle of grape juice into wine.

Came here for the math.

How about we Make Child Rape Abnormal Again? Can we start with that?

That all sounds complicated and confusing, so it must be wrong. Those filthy poors are getting something they didn’t pay for and can’t afford. That’s socialism.

(/s)

Giving away boot straps? That sounds like socialism to me.

Our party didnt change,

Both parties changed. Both parties moved to the left. The GOP didn’t change as much as the Democrats did. The Democrats ran away from the kind of conservatism that gave us the Klan. The Klan found themselves more closely aligned with the unchanging GOP than it did with the left-moving Democrats.

Cartoon beaver?

That’s a lawsuit.

That would probably be pretty good. Like a root beer float.

911 center: Okay, what is the phone number of the phone you are testing (so we know which inbound call to disregard)?

Your argument stems primarily from that point.

The purpose of contacting them is not to identify what phone number will be making the call. The purpose of contacting them is to ensure they are not currently in the middle of a mass casualty incident that you don’t know about.

They don’t care what number you will be making the call from. They care that they have the time and resources available to take it. If your test call is successful, you will tell them that it was a test call.

As for your argument about not having a phone to make the initial call, it’s 2026, not 1926. You have a phone, it’s in your hands right now, and you’re using it to read this.

Read the image. They charge a higher premium if you don’t use their auto pay.

The only way I can see around it is if you make annual payments instead of monthly. Fewer payments, less fees.

If we’re feeling petty, though, we can accept the higher premium, and send them weekly (or even daily) check payments instead of monthly. Let them process 30 transactions per month instead of just one.